Sunday, April 30, 2017

Weapons could be carried, openly or concealed, at the NRA Meeting in Atlanta in 2017. Except where the Secret Service had control of the venue for President Trump's speech. As you can see, knives and numerous other items that people would not think of as weapons, such as selfie sticks and backpacks, were prohibited.

This could have presented a major problem for people who had just walked a half a mile from parking to see and hear the first American President to address the NRA Annual Meeting since Ronald Reagan in 1983. Fortunately, Doug Ritter of Knife Rights had arranged a compassionate solution. Only a hundred feet from where attendees were being told they could not possess that treasured pocket knife, or bring their backpack into the venue Knife Rights had set up a complimentary Knife Check.

Doug Ritter at NRA Atlanta 2017

The Knife check did not just save people trouble and knives. They stored backpacks, walking sticks, flashlights, and holsters. About the only thing they did not check were firearms. A boy scout group volunteered to aid in the check in process. As people lined up to see President Trump, the place got busy.

This was the second year that Knife Rights had set up a complimentary knife check for a Secret Service venue at the annual NRA meeting. I asked Doug Ritter how long he expected to continue with the service. He said that Knife Rights would do it as long as there was a Secret Service controlled event at the NRA Meeting. A friend of mine predicted that Donald Trump would serve for two terms, and that a President Pence would serve two more after that.

Doug Ritter said: "From your mouth to God's ears."

These events may continue for quite a run.

Knife Rights is a powerhouse in reforming knife laws across the nation. Chairman Ritter says that they have opened up a "Second Front" in the war to restore the Second Amendment. Their success has been phenomenal for such a small, underfunded organization. Operating on peanuts, they have been able to successfully lobby to eliminate unconstitutional restrictions on the ownership and carry of knives in 16 states in eight years. They have succeed in creating Constitutional Carry for knives in Arizona, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Kansas.

The BATFE ruling that firearms that are more than 26 inches in length, but are not manufactured to be fired from the shoulder, are neither pistols or shotguns or rifles, but merely "firearms" has resulted in a new type of defensive firearm. The Remington Tac 14 is now available and has suggested retail price of $443.05. Store prices will likely be in the $400 range.

These type of firearms have been produced by small manufacturers for years. Two years ago, I predicted that the major manufacturers would come on board, if the small manufacturers proved popular. At that time, I had not considered a Donald Trump Presidency. From the article two years ago:

The usual sequence is that when small manufacturers find a profitable market, large manufactures start production of their own models to take advantage of it. I will be watching to see if Mossberg or other large firms start offering pistol grip 12 gauge firearms of similar configurations.

It is an interesting time, and I believe the end result will be reform of federal gun laws, to something far more rational and less burdensome than now exists.

The Trump Presidency has created a more firearms friendly legal environment. Both Mossberg and Remington have come out with this type of legal firearm. These firearm models make a mockery of the entire silly NFA regulatory scheme. From the previous article:

These short guns firing shotgun shells have obvious self defense
applications. There is no reason why these guns should be treated any
different than ordinary pistols. Functionally, they are either large
pistols or small shotguns. Both shotguns and pistols are
constitutionally protected by the Heller and McDonald decisions. There
is no valid reason for treating these firearms any differently than
other shotguns or pistols.

Except for the legacy issues created by the NFA, GCA1968, FOPA and the
various BATFE letter rulings. Those are what puts the ATF in a box,
and why they are reported to be sweating.. dare I say it.. bullets.

Every shotgun but the diminutive .410 has a bore greater than half an
inch. The "sporting purpose" exemption doesn't apply, since that is
limited to shotguns, and as we have seen, these firearms are not
"shotguns" under the definitions of the NFA.

The situation as it stands is thus: BATF must never have realized
that these firearms are NFA "destructive devices," and as a result
thousands, if not millions, are in private possession of persons who
bought them legitimately over the counter, with no reason to suspect
that there was anything legally amiss.

The mere pictures of the above firearms show how arcane and irrational
national firearms law has become. There are people in jail for
possession of firearms that are no different, functionally, from what
the ATF has ruled do not require $200 taxes and do not fall under the
NFA.

The next logical step would be for these firearms to sport arm braces, that have already been ruled as legal for pistols. Here is an example from Black Aces Tactical:

Photo from Black Aces Tactical

Notice that it uses a Sig arm brace (not a
stock) and receiver extension to make the ATF length requirement of
more than 26 inches. The 10 round detachable magazine is quite
interesting. H/T to Guns.com. Another model has the same receiver extension, except that the extension folds.

How long before Remington or Mossberg offers arm braces? Neither companies' representatives at the NRA Annual meeting were willing to speculate.

A logical evolution would be a semi-auto version. It is noteworthy that the Remington V3 shotgun has no operating parts in the shoulder stock. The recoil springs are under the barrel, allowing for a pistol grip stock to be functional. Will we see a Remington semi-auto firearm a little over 26 inches in length, based on the V3? Only time will tell.

The future regulation of short barreled shotguns (SBS) and short barreled rifles (SBR) is on shaky ground.

That's when the pair came across a man police later identified as 21-year-old Mykale B. Davis. Sinnott pointed her father's .32 caliber pistol at the man.

"I told him that I had a gun," she said. "I was standing there looking at him with the gun pointing at him. I told him a hundred times not to come out because I had a gun and that I would shoot and that we were waiting for the cops, that we had the cops on the line right now."

That's when the intruder lunged at Sinnott and attempted to wrestle the gun away from her.

"Anything could have happened by just the way he lunged at me, and I had the gun in his face and told him not to come out because I would shoot," she told the paper. "He probably thought I wouldn't shoot."More Here

Saturday, April 29, 2017

For the last three NRA Annual Meetings, open and concealed carry have been legal and practiced on the premises. In 2015 it was at Nashville in Tennessee. In 2016, it was at Louisville in Kentucky. In 2017, it is in Atlanta, Georgia. Today in the press room, there were a few open carriers. From the printing that I noticed here and there, there were a significantly greater number of concealed carriers.

I was one of those. The Press room was rather chilly for a Yuma, Arizona resident. I kept my jacket on. Out on the floor, there were few open carriers. Then it hit me. President Trump was scheduled to speak. The Secret Service does not allow anything that they consider a weapon in the room with the President for the speech. I noticed one gentleman with an empty holster, heading toward the venue for the President's speech.

I asked him if the empty holster was because he was going to hear President Trump.

Yes, he said. That was exactly the reason.

When I talked to people who had attempted to enter the forum for the speech, it is questionable if even the empty holster was allowed. One man was had to go to Knife Rights knife check facility and check a penlight flashlight! The explanation for the small numbers of open carry on the first day was obvious. I expect the numbers to increase over the next few days.

Open and concealed carry at NRA Meetings is here to stay. I doubt the NRA will schedule a meeting in a state that does not respect the Second Amendment enough to have a shall issue concealed carry law, and reasonable reciprocity.

A national reciprocity law could change that, opening up the 10-13 states that severely infringe on Second Amendment rights.

People who live on the borders of Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, California, Connecticut, and Delaware would appreciate the change. Even Illinois, Oregon, and Washington state would become much friendlier to visitors.

The trial involving the Flagstaff shooting of a mob of drunken fraternity members who attacked an 18 year old pistol owner, is almost over.

The shooting occurred in October of 2015. As of 27 April, 2017, the jury is considering the case.

A motion for mistrial by the defense has been refused by the trial judge, Dan Slayton. Slayton previously took the unusual stance of ruling the police video from the scene as "prejudicial". In the video, a bloodied and hysterical 18 year old, Steven Jones, tells the police how glad he is that they are there, and that he thought he was going to die.

Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he "had an audience at the police station". The defense cried foul. From azcentral.com:

A Coconino County Superior Court judge Thursday morning denied a mistrial for prosecutor misconduct in the Steven Jones murder trial.But he ordered that the jury be given an instruction about inaccurate statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument that would diminish Jones' claims of self-defense.Before the trial began, prosecutors Ammon Barker and Bryan Shea convinced the judge to preclude statements Jones made to witnesses and police at the scene of the October 2015 shooting that left one student dead and three others wounded on the Northern Arizona University campus.Immediately after the incident, Jones told another student that he acted in self-defense, and when he was in a police car after being detained, he was recorded on camera as saying, "Why were they going to hurt me?" and "I thought I was going to die."

Consider if, in the police video, Steven Jones had said, "They were evil and deserved to die". Do you think it would have been admitted as evidence? Want to take any bets? Of course it would have been admitted, to show the shooters state of mind. But clear evidence of the shooter's state of mind, taken minutes after the shooting, was excluded, because it favored the defense.

The jury has been out for about a day. It hasn't turned in a verdict yet. If it comes up with a guilty verdict, expect an appeal.

There is considerable punishment simply in the process.

The Coconino County Prosecutor's office is the same office that prosecuted Harold Fish.

I do not know who the prosecutor in this case is, but Michael J. Lessler is the Chief Deputy Attorney in Coconino County. He is the prosecutor who was in charge of the infamous Harold Fish case. Lessler claimed, for example, that Fish's use of a 10mm and hollowpoint bullet were somehow indications of malice.

An appeals court finally reversed and remanded Fish's conviction in 2009. Harold Fish had been in prison for three years. The Harold Fish prosecution was so over the top, it resulted in the Arizona legislature making three separate changes in Arizona law, to stop the abuses obvious in the case, and to insure that Harold Fish was able to obtain a new trial.

Fish died not long after being released from prison.

The shooting was originally covered in the media as a "school shooting". That was the take before details started coming out that indicated a self defense case.

Things like the shooter immediately surrendering to police, and thanking them for being there. Things like being outnumbered by a mob of drunken fraternity members (all the people shot had blood alcohol far beyond being legally drunk, and traces of marijuana). Things like the Steven Jones having no alcohol or drugs in his blood. The person who was killed was shot at a range of two feet or less, as he was moving toward Jones.

News coverage today is far more even than it was in the early days after the shooting.

The verdict will be very interesting.

If the verdict is not guilty, will the LA Times will issue a retraction over its early coverage?

A man was home with his 3-year-old son around noon when he grabbed his
gun as he heard someone breaking in, police said. The homeowner shot and
killed the burglar trying to make his way into the duplex on Northwest
71st Street and 5th Place.

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - UPDATE: Investigators have determined the business owner of Garden Oasis Medical, Dr. Edwin Zong, was assaulted by the suspect, whom he didn't know. As the assault was happening, the suspect made numerous comments regarding money. As a result of the assault, Dr. Zong received injuries to his face and head. Dr. Zong retrieved his firearm from a desk drawer and fired three rounds at the suspect, strinking him the upper torso

During a search of the business a handgun was located, which was confirmed to be registered and legally owned by Dr. Zong. The indentity of the suspect will be released by the Kern County Coroner's Office.

The vast majority of
defensive firearm uses involve the defensive display of the firearm. In some
states, it is illegal to display a gun for defensive purposes without risking a felony.
Mere display is considered the use of deadly force.

In numerous states, anti-self defense prosecutors have charged people
who were defending themselves. The defenders used restraint and did not have to shoot. They were then charged with illegal use of deadly force. Because of those abuses, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, and other states have enacted defensive display laws
similar to the Oklahoma bill.

The law should not penalize people
who realize that they do not need to shoot in a defensive situation. The current law is an incentive to turn a dangerous situation into a deadly one. SB 40 changes that in Oklahoma. From the bill text:

A
person pointing a weapon at a perpetrator in self-defense or in order
to thwart, stop or deter a forcible felony or attempted forcible felony
shall not be deemed guilty of committing a criminal act.

In an article about the bill, Oklahoma Representative Bobby Cleveland makes the case. From americanow.com:

A newly proposed Oklahoma state law, formally known as Senate Bill 40, could make it legal for people to brandish guns in an act of self-defense.

As they currently stand, state laws forbid the deliberate exposure of firearms except in instances of deadly force, according to Tulsa World.

"When you go and get your (concealed carry) license, that instructor tells you that you don't bring your gun out, you don't show your gun, you don't intimidate somebody with your gun," said Slaughterville Representative Bobby Cleveland.

"If you bring it out, you have to shoot."

Representative Cleveland is showing the absurdity of that advise.What about the
numerous cases where people draw guns, and the perpetrator flees? Should
the defender shoot at the fleeing felon? We did away with those laws
long ago.

What about a defender who is menaced with
a knife, or a club, or a mob threatening to kill them? Must they shoot?
No, it would be irresponsible to shoot once the menace has stopped
being a threat.The bill is all about defensive display of weapons. It should be the law in every state.

It is simple common sense.

Requiring someone to shoot when they draw a gun is a deadly legislative mistake.

SB 40 passed the Oklahoma Senate, 36-5. It passed the Oklahoma House 82-8. It still needs a procedural vote in the Senate, then it will go to Governor Mary Fallin. It seems likely to be signed into law.

I drove to the NRA Meeting in Atlanta yesterday, the 26th of April, 2017. I had been visiting family in Dallas, Texas, so it was only 800 miles.

On the way, I reflected on the last time I was in Atlanta for more than a flight change. It was over 40 years ago, when I was in the Army.

What happened then was not important. But what has happened in the last 40 years has been phenomenal for Second Amendment Supporters.

In 1974, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was only six years old. It had not been improved by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Travel with firearms was a bit dicey. I figured my military orders would keep me out of trouble for the firearms I had in the car, but it was far from certain.

Now, in 2017, I drove with confidence from Texas to Georgia, with jacket on or off, carrying openly or concealed as convenience and temperature dictated.

In 1974, Texans had no right to carry, except in extremely limited circumstances, such as on their own land. There was an affirmative defense if you were carrying while travelling. That meant you could be arrested, and then have to prove to a judge that you really were travelling. There was some precedent to indicate traveling might be interpreted as crossing a county line. Today, both concealed and open carry are legal and accepted with a shall issue permit, and reciprocity for the permit extends to many states.

I crossed the line into Louisiana, noting that gas prices dropped momentarily to $1.99 per gallon. In constant dollars, it is close to the price paid for gas in 1974.

The scenery was beautiful. Louisiana passed an improved right to carry amendment in 2012. Their constitution had given the legislature the right to regulate the wearing of concealed weapons shortly after they became a state. The 2012 amendment took away that specific power.

Louisiana has a shall issue permit and wide reciprocity, and open carry without a permit, for anyone over 17. A talk radio station in Louisiana extolled the virtues of small government, and railed against an anti-business tax. In 1974, it was hard to find any commentary on the air extolling limited government and holding to the Constitution.

Mississippi came into view as I crossed the river. Mississippi had very restrictive carry laws in 1974, especially if you were black. In 2016, Mississippi joined the Constitutional Carry club. You do not need a permit to carry in Mississippi, openly or concealed. It does not matter if you are white or black, because you do not need to apply for a permit. I felt as if I were in friendly territory.

I had forgotten how beautiful the South is. The gently rolling hills, greenery covering the fields, expansive, dense woods, lots of pretty wild country. That is the way it was as I rolled through Alabama. In 1974, Alabama had concealed carry permits that were issued by County Sheriff offices. Issue of permits were to locals that the Sheriff approved of. Even today, a sheriff has a some "discretion" in issuing permits. Obtaining a permit from out of state was practically impossible in 1974. Open carry was likely to get you hassled.

In 2017, open carry is recognized as legitimate. Concealed carry in many formats, does not require a permit. The Alabama Senate has passed Constitutional Carry. Alabama is likely to joint the Constitutional Carry club soon.

The traffic in Georgia left a little to be desired. Georgia has required a carry permit for a long time. An outsider had no real chance of getting a Georgia permit in 1974. Wisconsin had no statutory system of issuing permits then (my residence was in Wisconsin at the time). Georgia would not have recognized a Wisconsin permit, in any case. The Georgia permit changed from "may issue" to shall issue" in 1989. Georgia recognizes both my Arizona and Florida permits, as it does permits from 30 other states, including Wisconsin. A permit is good for both open and concealed carry, and covers knives as well as handguns.

I felt quite comfortable carrying a handgun and knife in Georgia. I carried in the World Congress Center in Atlanta where the NRA Meeting is being set up. I wore a jacket, but if it becomes warm in the press room, I will have no problem openly carrying my Glock 17. I did it at the NRA Meeting last year.

Second Amendment supporters have made tremendous strides in 40 years.

40 years ago, most activists believed they were fighting a delaying action, hoping to hold onto what was left of Second Amendment rights for as long as possible. We were told that demographics and the growth of Urban America were against us. We were given bad information. That sounds rather familiar, thinking of recent pronouncements from academia.

The fight to restore Second Amendment rights has been long, hard, and fruitful. Incrementalism has worked. Another justice who takes his oath seriously has been confirmed to the Supreme Court. The second U.S. President in the history of the NRA is going to speak at the 2017 annual meeting. The Trump administration is rolling back administrative rules. National reciprocity has many co-sponsors in both the House and the Senate.

The Trump administration is the beneficiary of 40 years of hard fought battles to restore Second Amendment rights. The Trump Administration is expected to carry that battle to Congress, and win it.

Much remains to be done. Numerous infringements remain in the statutes and regulations. But Second Amendment supporters are winning, and the NRA has been a large part of those victories.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

A Dunnellon man this week kicked open the back door of a woman’s home,
returned hours later to apologize but was then detained at gunpoint by
neighbors, according to the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.

When a deputy arrived in the 18800 block of Southwest 31st Street in
Ocala early Tuesday morning, three people were holding Anthony Talley at
gunpoint. In the patrol cruiser on the way to jail, Talley told a
deputy, “I had a really bad night last night,” according to a Sheriff’s
Office report. Talley had multiple scratches on his arms, face and legs,
the report noted.More Here

She spotted a Hispanic male in his early 20’s breaking in through her back kitchen door. She started screaming at the man as he managed to kick in the door and make his way into the kitchen.

He continued to come into the home, so she opened fire. She doesn’t think she hit him. No blood was found at the scene.

“She shot through the window,” explained Sgt. Michael Oliva from the San Antonio Police Department. “She was probably trying to scare him. We checked and there’s no evidence that he was shot.”More Here

One of the suspects allegedly hit the 52-year-old man with a stick. The man then pulled his personal firearm and attempted to hold the suspects at gunpoint while the 61-year-old man called 911 for help.

"During this time, the suspects were able to get into their vehicle, which was parked on the property," Sgt. Woodrow said. "And at some point, while the suspects were driving by the property owner, the 52-year-old fired several shots toward the vehicle."

The suspects' vehicle was struck twice, but they were not hit. More Here

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

A robbery suspect was killed with his own gun after he shot one victim and pistol-whipped another in west Oak Cliff late Monday, police said.

(snip)

Homicide detectives who interviewed witnesses determined that the robber produced a handgun and tried to rob two people. One of the people got shot and then fought with the suspect to defend himself, Jones said. The victim managed to get the gun away and shoot the suspect.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Employees of a convenience store in the city's Stockyards neighborhood thwarted an armed robbery Friday by sneaking up behind the masked gunmen, putting a gun to his back and firing warning shots into the ceiling, according to police.

The employees held Fredrick Thornton, 26, at gunpoint inside the Convenient Food Mart on Clark Avenue until police took him into custody, according to police reports and surveillance footage of the incident.

Late in 2012, the ATF approved of a device that fit on the buffer tube of AR-15 style pistols. It made one handed shooting of these firearms much easier, and hence more accurate. The SB15 was invented by a disabled veteran, Alex Bosco. He quickly sold the rights to produce the arm brace to Sig Sauer.

As you can see, the device can also be used as a very short stock for the AR-15 pistol, even though that is not what it is designed for. Many people have put the brace to this use, as it is much easier to purchase AR-15 pistols and a brace than it is to go through all the bureaucratic and bizarre requirements to obtain a legal short barreled rifle (SBR) or short barreled shotgun (SBS). The legal restrictions on SBS and SBR firearms never made any sense. They only made sense if the federal government put the same restriction on handguns, as FDR attempted to do in 1934. That attempt failed, due in large part because of lobbying by the NRA.

In 2015, the ATF issued an open letter claiming that using the arm brace as a shoulder stock was a "redesign" of the pistol as an SBR.

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

The letter is an egregious stretch of the definition of "redesign" and is virtually unenforceable. Now that the ATF is part of the Trump administration, things have changed. The first substantial hint was a white paper by BATFE second in command, Ronald B. Turk, dated the day of President Trump's inauguration, January 20th, 2017. The paper was leaked to the Washington Post.

In the paper, Mr. Turk indicated that the ATF would be open to removing the "redesign" language form the open letter. From the white paper:

... ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer - without additional proof or redesign - may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.

SB tactical has now reported the ATF has reversed the position of the 2015 open letter, as suggested in Mr. Turk's leaked white paper. From SB-Tactical:

SB Tactical™, inventors and manufacturers of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace®, is excited to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has issued SB Tactical a reversal letter containing a sensible clarification of the Bureau’s position on the lawful use of SB Tactical braces.

The new clarification of opinion letter states, “an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”

SB Tactical, along with the law offices of Mark Barnes & Associates, have worked tirelessly for more than two years to correct what they believed to be an inaccurate interpretation of “redesign,” related to the Pistol Stabilizing Brace. “It has always been our belief that the addition of our Pistol Stabilizing Brace benefits shooters, both disabled and able-bodied, and that neither strapping it to your arm nor shouldering a brace equipped pistol would constitute ‘redesign’ of a pistol to a NFA firearm”, said Alex Bosco, inventor, founder and CEO of SB Tactical. “We are strongly encouraged by the ATF’s reversal of opinion and commend their willingness to continually review policy, including their own opinions, to ensure public safety and the fulfillment of their mission.”

There is no logical reason for SBS or SBR firearms to be regulated or restricted any more than handguns and pistols are. This change in interpretation by the ATF makes that abundantly clear. It seems likely the Trump administration will be able to make major reforms in the National Firearms Act.

Removing silencers, SBR and SBS firearms from the cumbersome and expensive bureaucratic controls of the NFA would be a logical and long overdue reform that fits well with the Trump agenda of protecting Second Amendment rights and reducing burdensome regulations.

This year, 2017, the NRA Annual Meeting is being held in Atlanta at the Georgia World Congress Center. 80,000 people are expected to attend. There will be 450,000 square feet of exhibits. As with the past two annual meetings, attendees will be able to carry firearms in accordance with state laws. In Georgia a carry permit is required.

Georgia recognizes both resident and non-resident permits from the above states. Georgia carry law covers both handguns and knives that are designed for defense or offense, and have blades that are over five inches in length.

A carry permit is required for both open and concealed carry.

There are gun free zones in Georgia law, but most do not apply to the Georgia World Congress Center where the Annual Meeting will be held. However, the food court at the CNN Center in their hotel complex is a gun free zone. There are other areas in the CNN Center, which has a number of retail shops, that ban guns. Here is a statement from the nraam.org:

Firearms Policy for the 2017 NRA Annual Meetings: During the 2017 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits, lawfully carried firearms will be permitted in the Georgia World Congress Center and the Omni Atlanta Hotel at CNN Center in accordance with Georgia law. However, firearms are not allowed in the remainder of the CNN Center, including the food court and shops. When carrying your firearm, remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.

Be aware of your surroundings. If someone asks you to leave an area because you are carrying, it is best to politely leave.

Anti-rights
political activists complained that the NRA would not allow people to
carry firearms at their annual meetings. The NRA stopped those
complaints by insisting on allowing legal carry. The anti-rights groups
cannot make that claim any longer.

It
seems unlikely that the NRA leadership would schedule an Annual Meeting
for a state that does not honor the right to bear arms. That would rule
out California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, and Rhode Island. It might rule out Washington State, Oregon,
and Illinois, on the basis of lack of reciprocity.

The next few Annual Meetings are:

2018 Dallas, Texas

2019 Indianapolis, Indiana

2020 Nashville, Tennessee

2021 Houston, Texas

2022 Undetermined

2023 Indianapolis, Indiana

Attendance at the NRA Annual Meetings has grown to about 80,000. There are a limited number of venues that can accommodate that number of attendees. In addition, a central location makes it a bit easier for attendees to travel to the Meeting.

On April 22, 2017, in Hoover, Alabama, an antique German shotgun, made in 1892, was turned in as hazardous waste. At first, the Hoover authorities were going to have the shotgun destroyed. After finding that the antique could be worth thousands of dollars, they decided to try to find the owner instead. From hooversun.com:

One of the most unusual items dropped off today was an 1892 double-barrel German shotgun. David Buchanan, a painter for the city of Hoover who was helping unload items brought in by residents, said an older gentleman brought the weapon after finding it in his closet and figuring he had no use for it.

Smith and city workers initially said the gun would have to be melted down like other guns turned into police. However, Hoover City Administrator Allan Rice said city officials will try to locate the man who surrendered the gun and help him determine the value of it and what should be done with it. The city does not plan to destroy the antique and will work to preserve the history associated with the weapon, Rice said.

It is good to see some common sense in Hoover City administration. They should have known that a gun made in 1892 is not considered a firearm under Federal law. It is an antique, and not subject to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

While the authorities made the correct decision about this shotgun, they will be destroying 75 pounds of ammunition.

I would not shoot reloaded ammunition from such a source. It could be disassembled for components. Quite a bit of the ammunition in the picture is obviously from the factory. I would not be worried about shooting it. I should attend the next Hazardous Waste day in Yuma to see what shows up. If most of the ammo were shotgun shells, 75 lbs would be about a thousand rounds of ammunition, worth about $200.

Sources have told me that they have obtained tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, simply by promising to "dispose of it properly".

Modern ammunition is remarkably durable. If kept dry and in reasonable temperatures, expect a shelf life of at least 75 years.

If you are willing to experience a few misfires, or perhaps even hangfires, even ammunition that has been stored in poor conditions is likely to provide good service. Proper care should be taken when shooting it.

Unless the cases are badly corroded or damaged, the danger of poorly stored modern ammunition is that it might not expel a bullet or shot charge from the barrel. If that condition is not discovered, a burst or bulged barrel is almost certain, and damage to the person is possible.

It would be far better that the unwanted ammunition be expended at a range, where the lead will be recycled, than burned in an incinerator.

An Illinois appellate court has upheld the Fourth and Second Amendments. They did so rather apologetically. The case was decided on 31 March of 2017, but the events involved occurred in 2011.

When you read the entire case two distinctive versions of events are discerned. Neither version would justify the police actions. That is why the conviction was overturned. Here is what both sides seem to agree on:

An unmarked police car is slowly driving through a poor black neighborhood. A man and a woman are standing on the porch of a row house. Another man is standing a couple of feet off of the porch with his back to the street, talking to them. Two police officers are in the unmarked car.One police officer is scanning the neighborhood. The other is driving. They drive past the house. The police passenger tells the driver to stop the car. At about the same time, the person standing off of the porch quickly ducks into the house and locks the door.

The police call for backup. After five to six minutes, backup arrived and the police have obtained keys to the house. The two initial officers unlock the door, and search the house. Inside, they find two men. In one of the bedrooms, they find a semi-automatic handgun hidden under a mattress. The handgun was not listed as stolen. Evidence was not allowed showing the legal owner of the handgun. A resident of the house testified that the handgun belonged to his brother, who lived in the house with him. From illinoiscourts.gov:

After the suppression hearing, but before trial, the State orally moved to preclude Horton from introducing evidence regarding the gun’s ownership and whether the gun was stolen. Horton sought to introduce a document from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Explosives National Tracing Center naming the owner and showing that the weapon was not stolen.

The man who ducked into the house had two prior convictions for non-violent felonies in "1998 and 2003 for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver". He was not a resident of the house.

Here are some items that were not agreed on.

One of the critical points was whether the officer actually saw a gun or not before entering the house.

The passenger police officer (Hummons) said he saw a bulge in the waistband of the defendant, and that he glimpsed a "metallic object" as the subject briefly turned, as the police car passed the house. The bulge and the "metallic" object were not mentioned to his partner, nor were they included in the initial incident report or the arrest report.

I found the following assertion disturbing, but the court did not comment on it.

The passenger police officer said he found a set of keys on the floor of the porch near where the woman was sitting. The man and woman were detained in the police car while the officers called for backup. They were searched before being put in the car.

If an officer finds a set of keys, does that give him the authority to enter your house? As a former officer, I find it more likely that the keys were found in the man or woman's pockets, but we do not have testimony to that effect.

Most cases such as this would be plea bargained. But this case was taken to a jury trial, and then appealed. The Second Division Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, made the correct decision. From illinoiscourts.gov:

[*P1] Chicago police officers, in their mission to
“serve and protect,” must remove from the city’s streets illegal guns,
which claim hundreds of lives each year and imperil the public’s safety
and security. Presumably acting on that laudable desire, an officer had a
hunch, based on seeing “a metallic object” in Markell Horton’s
waistband, that Horton might have a handgun and pursued him. Eventually,
police found a handgun hidden under a mattress in a bedroom where they
found Horton, and he was charged with possession. But changes in
Illinois law (in part mandated by United States Supreme Court rulings
protecting the right to keep and bear arms) now hold that it is not
illegal to carry a concealed handgun, as long as certain procedures are
followed.

[*P2] As judges, we are stuck between a hammer and the anvil. On the
one hand, we are ever mindful of, and horrified by, the level of gun
violence that continues to plague the City of Chicago. We feel confident
in saying that all members of the judiciary wish for reformative
solutions. But we also are mindful of our limited role in a
constitutional system. We cannot sidestep or disregard instruction from
both the United States and Illinois Supreme Courts to achieve a specific
outcome. When we hold that precedent dictates the result here, it is
not because we are naïve, or “soft on crime.” On the contrary, it is
because we must follow, not rewrite, the established law and the facts
in evidence.

[*P3] We now turn to the specifics of Horton’s appeal. Horton argues
four issues: (i) the trial court improperly denied his motion to quash
arrest and suppress evidence; (ii) the trial court improperly barred him
from introducing registration and ownership evidence of the weapon,
both before and after the State “opened the door” to the evidence; (iii)
reasonable doubt; and (iv) ineffectiveness of trial counsel. In
addition, this court ordered supplemental briefs on the issue of
probable cause to pursue Horton “in view of the rulings in District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago,
561 U.S. 741 (2010); People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116; and People v.
Burns, 2015 IL 117387.”

[*P4] We hold that the trial court improperly denied Horton’s motion
to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The probable cause to pursue
Horton was based on the officer’s belief that Horton possessed a gun in
violation of the unlawful use of a weapon statute (720 ILCS 5/24 1.1(a)
(West 2010)), later found unconstitutional on its face and void ab
initio. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116; Burns, 2015 IL 117387. As a result, the
search and seizure of the gun was unlawful and the trial court erred
when it denied Horton’s motion to quash his arrest and suppress the
evidence.

As a gun owner, it is distressing that so little attention was paid to the actual owner of the firearm. It seems that the owner was a resident of the house that was raided. It appears that he followed the rules in obtaining and keeping the firearm. Was the pistol returned to him? It seems highly unlikely. The costs for obtaining a court order from a judge, requiring the police to return the pistol, would be far more than the pistol was worth. Moreover, finding a judge in Chicago who would be willing to make such an order is highly problematic.

California used to be notorious for this sort of "legalized theft". It took several lawsuits to force the California legislature to create a system for legal gun owners to recover firearms that had been impounded. Many police departments around the country still follow a sometimes spoken rule: they never return firearms without a court order to do so.

Perhaps this case will help bolster the rule of law in Chicago. It is a step in the correct direction.

BLOOMINGTON — An Ohio woman said she was "fearing for her life" when she shot an intruder who tackled her after she discovered him in the garage of her parents' south Bloomington home early Friday morning.

"Anything could have happened by just the way he lunged at me, and I had the gun in his face and told him not to come out because I would shoot," said Kim Sinnott of Hamilton, Ohio. "He probably thought I wouldn't shoot."

According to police, one of the individuals walking allegedly tried to shoot the attacking dog using a legally permitted gun, but accidentally shot another person they were walking with in the lower extremity.

Police say the person shot was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. They say that the attacking dog is dead, while the dog that was attacked is reportedly fine.More Here

Monday, April 24, 2017

The Pennsylvania legislature is aiming to enforce their strong firearms preemption law. A similar enforcement law was enacted in 2014, but was struck down in 2016. The state Supreme Court ruled that the legislature had violated the state constitutional requirement for "single issue" statutes when the bill was passed.

On April 19, 2017, a replacement bill passed the House Judiciary committee by a 20-5 vote.

As with most states, Pennsylvania has a strong firearms preemption law. The statute has been on the books for over three decades. The preemption law requires that virtually all firearms law in Pennsylvania be uniform at the state level. Local governments are forbidden from passing a patchwork quilt of firearms regulations that can entrap innocent residents as they exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The preemption statute had no provisions for penalties or enforcement. It was presumed that local governments would follow the law. That was a bad assumption. Over 50 local governments have made a mockery of the rule of law by passing restrictive and illegal local firearm ordinances in Pennsylvania.

If the law was violated, affected private individuals and organizations that they belong to, could sue local governments for damages. The law passed by large, veto proof majorities, and was signed by Governor Corbett.

The law was opposed by the political class in large urban centers such as Philadelphia. In a bizarre turn, the Pennsylvania AG, Kathleen Kane, refused to enforce the law, and aided the cities in challenging the law in court. In 2016, the law was struck down as having passed the legislature improperly. In an ironic twist, Democrat Kathleen Kane was convicted of felonies while in office, in the same year the statute was struck down.

The current bill, HB 671, is essentially the same as the legislation that was struck down. From state.pa.us:

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

* * *

(a.2) Relief.--A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a resolution, regulation, rule, practice or any other action promulgated or enforced by a county, municipality or township prohibited under subsection (a) or 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g) (relating to limitation on municipal powers) may seek declaratory or injunctive relief and actual damages in an appropriate court.

It seems likely to pass again in 2017. The legislature will be careful to follow all the procedural requirements. But this time, a Democrat, Tom Wolf is the Governor. It is likely that he will veto the reform bill. His voter base is in the urban centers. The urban center's political establishments have shown a strong desire to continue to violate the preemption law.

Republicans hold large majorities in the House and Senate. 123 to 83 in the House, and 31-19 in the Senate. It is unknown if enough Democrats would cross the aisle to override a veto.

About one to two minutes went by and a black male dressed in all black entered the room with a gun and fired a shot into the ceiling. The victim then rolled out of the bed and grabbed her gun from her purse and fired back at the subject in the room.

The victim believed the offender was hit with gunfire because he moved quickly to one side.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

An American Muslim who open and concealed carries weapons got into trouble for a facebook live video. He filmed and posted the video outside of a Christian event that some called "anti-Muslim". The event occurred on April 9th, 2017.

Ehad Abdulmutta Jaber bought tickets for the event and was wearing the T-shirt pictured above. The Shirts says:

I am an American

I am a Muslim

I open carry

I concealed carry

I am only dangerous

If you are stupid.

Ehad entered the event wearing the shirt and openly carrying a holstered pistol. He was concealed carrying another pistol in an ankle holster. One account said he was filming the event, but he was only there for a few minutes.

Ehad was approached by a security guard and asked to leave, as firearms were prohibited at the venue. By all accounts, Ehad was asked to leave politely, and he politely left. It was after he left the venue and was inside his van in the parking lot, that he made a serious error.

He posted a live facebook video of himself, speaking of the event. Here are links to the video. I found the dailymail link easier to view, it is not a reverse image.

Ehad has First and Second Amendment rights. He says that he is an American citizen who has lived in Sioux Falls for 25 years. The T-Shirt is clearly a political statement.

The video may have been a bridge too far. In the video, Ehad says that he was at the event. He is upset, and uses considerable profanity. He says "And now if you really want to be scared, be scared," he then briefly displays four semi-auto pistols, an AR-15 type rifle, and an AK type firearm that might be either a pistol or a rifle. He also shows that he has ammunition. He says "be terrified". Up to this point, the video may be taken as sarcasm.

A Police officer said that Jaber was not arrested at the rally. The officer is quoted as saying that there was no direct threat. From kdlt.com:

“He had a lot of guns with him, but he wasn’t breaking any laws. He didn’t threaten anybody directly, he didn’t threaten any groups of people anything like that and it’s not illegal to carry guns or have guns with you,” says Officer Sam Clemens of the Sioux Falls Police Department.

Police say Jaber does have open carry and concealed carry permits. They also spoke with him, so did the FBI. Police say the information was sent to the Lincoln County State’s Attorney’s Office and no charges will be made.

“You have to have some type of specific threat or manner, just having a gun just because it alarms people doesn’t constitute a threat. That doesn’t mean you are going to harm people,” says Clemens.

But Jaber's last statement on the video may make a significant difference. His last sentence was "F*ck all ya all."

I have written, read, and participated in open carry and Second Amendment events over considerable parts of the country. I have some sympathy for Ehad Jaber. Posting a video in the parking lot of an event that you are protesting, showing a number of legal weapons, while telling people to be scared, to be terrified, is extremely unusual and provocative.

Then to say "F*ck all ya all." is over the line. I have never seen anyone at any of the events I attended or wrote about, or read about, tell people to be scared and terrified, as they handled weapons, or to make the F-bomb threat. Those are dozens of events over the years.

I could follow the sarcasm up to the last F-bomb. Then it became ambiguous.

After a little study, the Lincoln County AG made the decision to arrest Jaber and charge him with one count of a terrorist threat. From argusleader.com:

A man who authorities say brought weapons to an anti-Islam event earlier this month has been arrested on charges that he made a terrorist threat, according to a release from the South Dakota Attorney General.

When Jaber was arrested, a search was made of his residence. Law enforcement reports that they found methamphetamine.

A
SWAT team was dispatched along with local police, Forster said, but
once they arrived, Jaber was taken into custody in a "standard
operation."

During a search of Jaber’s residence, the release said, law enforcement seized firearms as well as methamphetamine.

The methamphetamine find seems fortuitous for law enforcement; but it might explain the rant and poor choice of words in the facebook video.

To look at this objectively, consider if the religions were reversed. Suppose a Christian had worn the shirt with "Christian" instead of "Muslim" to a Muslim event. Suppose a Christian had made the facebook video. My experience is that the Christian would quickly have been arrested.

That is why you do not see such activity at other open carry events. There are many open carry events that you can see on the Internet. The participants are polite to the police, as was Ehab. They do not go to a van in the parking lot of an event they are protesting, and then post a video that can easily be taken as threatening.

I wish Ehad well, but fear he has made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. When you are politically active for both the First and Second Amendments, there is no room for foolish bravado.

Finally, on Easter weekend, the tension between the two men ended in an exchange of gunfire in a ranch pasture that left both dead and a third man injured. On Wednesday, the Hillsborough Sheriff's Office released dramatic new details about the sequence of events.

First, Milton Varn shot his brother Perry dead and fired on George "Terry" Long, hitting him in the shoulder. Then Milton Varn threatened to shoot his ex-wife, Joanne Varn, now married to Long. Fearing for her life, Joanne Varn shot and killed him, the Sheriff's Office said.

Deputies arrived at the ranch to find the bodies of Milton, 62, and Perry, 66. Long, 71, was treated and released from Tampa General Hospital this week. More Here

"It is the opinion of this office that James Wisely was justified in his use of force, which does not merit the filing of any criminal activity,” Sebastian County Prosecutor Dan Shue wrote in a news release.

Shue noted the applicable law as reading “A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence; using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.”

The law goes on to say that a person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by retreating. However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is unable to retreat with complete safety, the law adds.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Louisiana passed a strong Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms in 2012. Representative Barry Ivey is working to modernize the state laws to reflect the change desired by the voters. Louisiana law recognizes the right to carry weapons openly, but requires a permit to carry concealed. From wafb.com:

However, House Bill 68 by Baton Rouge lawmaker, Rep. Barry Ivey, would do away with the permitting process. That means anywhere a person can legally carry a gun openly, they could also carry a concealed gun without a permit. Convicted felons would still not be allowed to carry.

HB 68 would not "do away" with the permitting process. The permitting process would remain in place. It simply would not be mandatory any longer. A commenter at legiscan writes that it is the House Administration of Criminal Justice committee that has killed the bill in the past. She notes that the requirements for a permit chill the exercise of the right to bear arms for many. From the comments at legiscan.com:

This bill has been shot down multuple times in the past years by the House Administration of Criminal Justice. It is time to let the poeple you represent vote on whats right for them and let this bill pass on to a vote of the people. Instead we have politicians who think they know whats best for you or police who dont want to deal with any hassle. Guess what, criminals are going to conceal anyway so this only affects law abiding citizens and the state because they count on this money. The only help we need on this one is to let us vote. There are alot of good people in this state that cant afford to take time off work ( not open on weekends)not to mention the $500.00 fee to get a lifetime concealed permit.

Louisiana has a shall issue concealed carry that was passed in 1996. Several incremental improvements in the law have been passed since then. Honorably discharged veterans have been exempted from fees for the five year license. People who have had felony convictions expunged can now obtain permits. A lifetime permit is offered.

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

It is hard to see that the requirement for a permit to conceal carry would pass the strict scrutiny standard. 13 other states do not require permits, and their crime rates are generally lower than that of Louisiana, so proving that the permit lowers crime would be difficult.

Passage of HB 68 seems unlikely this year. But New Hampshire and North Dakota have passed Constitutional Carry bills, and Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin bills are in play.

Montana passed a "permitless" carry bill for the third time
this year. The bill would have extended "permitless" carry to the 1% of
the state where a permit is required, but it was vetoed for a second
time by Governor Bullock. South Dakota passed a Constitutional Carry
bill for the second time, to have it vetoed the second time by Governor
Daugaard.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Later that afternoon at approximately 1:55 p.m., officers responded to the 6100 block of Quail Run South in reference to a burglary in progress. Officers arrived and observed that the male victim had detained the burglary suspect identified as 35-year-old Steven Adcock.

The victim told police that Adcock had broken into his shed. Adcock was arrested and transported to Mobile County metro Jail.More Here

“When he charged at me he was looking like he was going to attack me, so I had to pull out my gun and shoot him,” Hardy said. “I didn't want to shoot the dog.”

Hardy said he'd never had any trouble with the neighbor's dogs before but was warned recently by the homeowner who employs him to be careful of them.

“The owner just told me this last month to start watching out for those dogs,” Hardy said. “I don't know where they came from. I don't know if they were in the house or they were chained up, but now they're loose, and that fence is broken, and that's when they jumped across the fence at me.”More Here

An Evansville woman was asleep when someone began kicking in the door. The noise woke her up so she immediately grabbed some protection, her gun.

The 76-year-old woman says she saw a man without a shirt on attempting to enter her home. She warned him she had a gun and wasn't afraid to shoot. She proved just that by shooting a warning shot in the grass, and police say she had that right.

"She's in her upper 70s, and she has every right to defend herself. That's her castle and in Indiana, the castle doctrine is in effect," Sgt. Jason Cullum said. More Here

When they arrived, officers found two men lying on the ground between buildings suffering from gunshot wounds. An investigation revealed one of those men was a victim of the home invasion and the other was a suspect.

Hours later, a third person who police learned involved in the home invasion and subsequent exchange of gunfire showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound.More Here

SEATTLE, WA - A 19-year-old woman had to shoot her ex-boyfriend as he charged at her holding a gun in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood Monday morning, Seattle police say. The 32-year-old man was shot in the leg, but is expected to recover. However, Seattle police intend to arrest him on felony harassment charges as soon as he's discharged from the hospital. More Here

After confronting the suspect, a struggle for control of the shotgun ensured resulting in the discharge of one shot. The suspect then fled on foot in an unknown direction and responding officers from the Elk Grove Police Department were unable to locate the suspect.More Here

Venezuela is following a predictable pattern of dictators as they feel threatened. They disarm the general population, while allowing or insuring that their loyalists are armed. It is a pattern as old as history. The English did it by disarming the Irish, then the Catholics. Responses to the later disarmament brought about the English Bill of Rights, which served as the base for our Second Amendment. The British did it again in India, after the mutiny/revolt in 1857.

Hitler did it, building on the base that the Weimar Republic built in the late 1920s. If you were in the SS or SA, you could buy guns. Jews were forced to surrender their weapons. Only persons of "undoubted reliability" who "demonstrated need" were allowed to obtain "firearms acquisition permits or firearm carry permits". (page 59, translation, Gateway to Tyranny)

But making guns illegal for most of the people is only half of the equation. As Venezuela is falling apart, unable to feed its people or to keep crime under some control, the dictator Maduro has decided to arm those he thinks are loyal. From foxnews.com:

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said he will expand the number of civilians involved in armed militias, providing guns to as many as 400,000 loyalists.

The announcement came as Maduro's opponents are gearing up for what they pledge will be the largest rally yet to press for elections and a host of other demands Wednesday.

The Bolivarian militias, currently at approximately 100,000, were created by the late Hugo Chavez to assist the armed forces in the defense of his revolution from external and domestic attacks.

Speaking to thousands of militia members dressed in beige uniforms gathered in front of the presidential palace, Maduro said that vision remains relevant as Venezuela continues to face "imperialist aggression."

"A gun for every militiaman!" he cried.

Many have noted a glaring inconsistency. There are only about 100,000 Bolivarian militiamen at present. They do not have arms in the pictures. We are to believe that there are another 300,000 "loyal" Venezuelans that the Madura regime is willing to arm? It seems a bit unlikely. Even strongholds of Chavista are showing scenes of discontent with the regime.

I look forward to seeing pictures of those brown ( or is it tan) shirted militiamen walking around the streets of Caracas, armed.

A brutal dictator who disarms his people, and is willing to keep the blood flowing in the streets and concentration camps, can stay in power.

Leftist dictators have demonstrated the ability to do so, again and again.

But today, everyone has digital cameras. Venezuela has shown that it does not have the ability to control the flow of information with the ruthlessness and effectiveness of North Korea. Venezuela does not have a Walter Durante who is willing to lie about the reality of a Soviet enforced famine to a complicit New York Times. That may make a difference.

As an aside, is the left handed salute a Venezuelan innovation? Do other countries use it?

The Alabama legislature is moving toward passing Constitutional Carry. The bill, SB 24, has passed the Senate, 26 to 8 on Tuesday, 18 April, 2017. The bill would enforce the Alabama Constitutional amendment passed in 2014.

Amendment 3 passed with 72.5% of the vote in 2014. SB24 is the
legislature enforcing the Constitutional amendment with statutory reform. Here is a description of Amendment 3. From ballotpedia:

Proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that
every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms and that any
restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny; and to
provide that no international treaty or law shall prohibit, limit, or
otherwise interfere with a citizen's fundamental right to bear arms.

SB24 removes the requirement to have a permit in order for people to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms under the Alabama Constitution, and under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

According to the NRA-ILA, the bill is likely to be assigned to the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. The Chairman of the committee is Allen Treadaway. Treadaway is a police officer as well as a legislator. From legislature.state.al.us:

He was born on September 25, 1961, and received his Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission from the Birmingham Police Academy. Representative Treadaway serves as a Police Captain with the City of Birmingham.

In 2010, he received a 92% rating from the NRA political victory fund.

Allen Treadaway voted to put amendment 3 on the ballot. If SB24 is approved by Treadaway's committee, it will likely pass in the House. The NRA-ILA is providing a link to contact Treadaway. If the bill passes the House, it would be sent to Governor Kay Ivy.

Governor Ivy received an A rating and an endorsement from the NRA-ILA in 2014. From al.com:

The National Rifle Association has issued its endorsements and grades in a number of Alabama races, and big endorsement winners are incumbent Gov. Robert Bentley and Lt. Gov. Kay Ivey.

Alabama is on track to be the third state to pass Constitutional
carry this year. New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a bill that
brought New Hampshire into the Constitutional carry club on 22 February, 2017. North Dakota's bill was signed into law by Governor Dick Burgun on 23 March, 2017.

There are 13 current members of the Constitutional Carry Club. They are Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia.

Vermont was the only Constitutional Carry state until 2003, when Alaska
passed its modernization bill. Arizona was next, in 2010. Since 2010,
ten more states have modernized state law to reflect respect for the
exercise of the Second Amendment.

Several other
states have legislation introduced or in process. Indiana, Iowa,
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virgina,
Utah, and Wisconsin all introduced bills in 2017. North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin bills are currently in play.

Montana passed a "permitless" carry bill for the third time
this year. The bill would have extended "permitless" carry to the 1% of
the state where a permit is required, but it was vetoed for a second
time by Governor Bullock. South Dakota passed a Constitutional Carry bill for the second time, to have it vetoed the second time by Governor Daugaard.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat